Needs Analysis


1. Description of the Setting

  • Our current clients are at various stages in their ARC support
  • New clients typically onboard in the summer or early fall
  • During this assignment timeframe, only one client was scheduled for a session
  • We do see similar trends across clients, however
  • The goal is to be able to inform all of our work that can be applicable to all clients, using Downingtown as a point of reference
  • Specifically, Downingtown's two middle schools are five months into their partnership with Project ARC. Due to a variety of reasons that are discussed below, not every teacher in the first training cohort has attended every session. This has resulted in gaps in their learning.

Downingtown School District, PA:


  • Suburban district located approximately 40 minutes to the west of Philadelphia
  • Approximately 12,000 students
  • 10 elementary schools
  • 1 sixth grade center
  • 2 middle schools (Twitter: @rckstrprincipal)
  • 3 high schools (East, West, STEM Center)
  • 1 cyber academy
  • The 6th-grade center independently worked with Dayna in 2014 before Project ARC was created
    • Developed two signature projects (Art and Identity, Guardians of the Brandywine Creek)
    • Principal recommended to the new Chief Academic Officer that he contact Dayna for work with the middle schools
  • 2017-18 will add the elementary schools for Project ARC support
  • 2018-19 will add the high schools for Project ARC support
  • Conducted an assets inventory in September
    • 33 classrooms visited in LMS
    • 29 classrooms visited in DMS
    • Asset Inventory shared with staff
    • Recommendations based on Assets Inventory and provided to Administration
      • Fewer instances of direct instruction
      • Formative assessment
      • Deeper levels of questioning
      • Teachers identified as being ready for initial training
  • 2-day initial training in October, 1-day follow-up in December
    • Several teachers missed the second day of the initial training due to class commitments
      • Administration has not made any of the sessions mandatory
      • Participating teachers were a mix of the identified teachers and teachers who were interested
      • Follow-up session in December included some of the teachers who missed day 2
        • In short, teachers are all over the place in terms of support, understanding, and readiness


2. Current Performance Assessed

  • Phone meeting with CAO on February 3, 2017
    • He asked for a plan for the remainder of the school year
    • Project ARC requested a session with teachers to determine their needs
      • Goal is to meet client needs rather than to guess/assume/predict the issues
  • 2.5-hour session scheduled on February 15, 2017
    • Teachers attended based on choice and commitments to other meetings
    • Heavier attendance from DMS (Assistant Principal has been more supportive of staff, has participated in all training sessions, and was present for the assets inventory observations)
    • 1, 2, and 3-day attendees, so all teachers were in a different place
    • One brand new teacher showed up for the session
  • Modified Socratic Seminar and Affinity Mapping Session
    • The key to uncovering answers is to ask the right question
    • How can we best support a culture of authentic, relevant, and complex learning at DMS/LMS?

3. Instruments/Protocols

  • Teachers sit in a circle
  • Directions for process are discussed (*This version of a Socratic Seminar has been developed by Dayna over the years)
    • Open-ended question is posed
    • Anyone may start the discussion
    • Responses to the question are encouraged
    • Questions about the question are desired
    • Every time a question is asked, the participants are requested to clap
      • The clapping is an auditory reminder that asking questions is the goal of the session - if no clapping is heard for a period of time, it is a cue that someone should probably think of asking a new question
    • The questions that are asked are recorded on sheets of chart paper by the facilitator (Dayna)
      • A question can be asked in response to a question
      • Participants are encouraged to rephrase questions if they feel a clarification is needed
    • Discussion proceeded to last approximately 50 minutes
    • Five sheets of chart paper were filled
    • Discussion participants determine 3-4 themes that emerged during the session and then map the questions to the themes
    • Questions are color-coded based on the theme to which the question belongs
    • Some questions are cross-themed
  • Post-session: The questions are organized by theme and written up to be shared with all teachers and administrators
  • Questions and the emergent themes are used to plan upcoming support sessions (for this assignment, the instructional goals are developed to ensure a more thoughtful process on developing support)
    • Subsequent sessions are now a result of teacher needs and are not based on facilitator perceptions

4. Justification/Research

  • Sharing Practice Through Socratic Seminars (Mangrum, 2010)
    • "Build openness and trust for establishing productive conversations that lead to sound policies and practice in the school" (Mangrum, 2010, p. 41).
    • "Sometimes, what teachers need most is to just talk to each other" (Mangrum, 2010, p.40).
    • The implementation of this study was based on a traditional approach to a Socratic Seminar - used a text and opening, core, and closing questions asked by the facilitator
  • Socrates and the Method of Madness (Schneider, 2012)
    • "Evolution and pedagogical diversity are both good things" (Schneider, 2012, p.29).
    • Focus on student (in my case, the teachers were my students) talk, rather than teacher (me) talk: Conversation, debate, back-and-forth
  • Determinants for Failure and Success of Innovation Projects: The Road to the Sustainable Educational Initiative (Kirschner, Hendriks, Paas, & Wopereis, 2004)
    • Why do some innovations fail while others succeed? Why are some innovations more successful than others? (Study questions and key questions that Project ARC faces when we work with schools)
    • Qualitative study with guided interviews
      • Responses were labeled and clustered (similar to the affinity mapping of the Socratic Seminar)
    • Often we are quick to implement new pedagogical approaches without a proper investigation of the problems the innovation is supposed to address
      • Needs of future users?
      • The willingness of different participants to cooperate?
      • Success and failure factors?
  • What Would Socrates Say? (Cookson, 2009)
    • Sometimes we need to forego the use technology (i.e. - this discussion protocol)
    • Critical reflection is needed to bring together disjointed information (affinity mapping)
    • "Knowledge is social" (Cookson, 2009, para. 16).
    • "By looking at a challenge from multiple points of view, we are more likely to arrive at a realistic, effective solution" (Cookson, 2009, para. 19).

5. Summary of Findings

  • Emergent Themes from the Affinity Map:
    • Time/Planning
    • Risk/Reward (Teachers and Learners)
    • Technology Balance
  • Questions and Affinity Map can be found here
  • There is definitely a gap in the learning, as was predicted
  • Teachers are still concerned about "what this looks like" in their classrooms
  • Teachers are concerned about the perceived workload changes that come with implementation of authentic learning experiences
  • Teachers are concerned that this change in pedagogical approach requires them to rely on technology